Jump to content


#occupywallstreet Or Bourbonstreet Or Sesamestreet


  • Please log in to reply
386 replies to this topic

#21 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Deplorable Lives Matter

  • Members
  • 24,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 10 October 2011 - 07:57 AM

View PostDagata, on Sunday, October 9th, 2011, 11:00 PM, said:

I can with 2 wordsDefine Everyone.
It shouldn't be hard to stop things like Al Sharpton's last run for office where he took the public money and stayed in the nicest hotels and flew private jets around for a few months while he raised his Q rating all on the public dole.
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

The government was set to protect man from criminals - and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government. - Ayn Rand

#22 FCP Bob

FCP Bob

    Limit Holdem Dinosaur

  • Root Admin
  • 26,844 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scarberia

Posted 10 October 2011 - 08:14 AM

http://erratasec.blo...porting-of.htmlLong really balanced blog about the protesters.
Bob

info@fullcontactpoker.com

#23 brvheart

brvheart

    I'm the best.

  • Members
  • 25,273 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toyko, Japan
  • Interests:Playing in nuclear fallout.
  • Favorite Poker Game:I play 100/200 live with my best friend Jason.

Posted 10 October 2011 - 08:41 AM

If corporations, including unions, were not allowed to donate, and the individual donations were still capped at 2k, this would effectively level the playing field and reduce the need for many lobbists.

View PostiZuma, on 20 August 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

napa I was jesus christing suited, you guys just slipped in before me.

View PostEssay21, on 25 February 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

.

#24 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Deplorable Lives Matter

  • Members
  • 24,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 10 October 2011 - 08:51 AM

View Postbrvheart, on Monday, October 10th, 2011, 9:41 AM, said:

If corporations, including unions, were not allowed to donate, and the individual donations were still capped at 2k, this would effectively level the playing field and reduce the need for many lobbists.
?Could xyz corp still pay for ads trashing the other guy?Can Unions still buy tens of thousands of autobiographies by a candidate to give out to their members?Could you trust the media to be fair and balanced with all their reporting?The more efforts made to stop them, the more ways they find to circumvent the process.
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

The government was set to protect man from criminals - and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government. - Ayn Rand

#25 CaneBrain

CaneBrain

    The chosen few....

  • Members
  • 14,896 posts
  • Location:The NFL Films Vault
  • Favorite Poker Game:5/10 NLHE (100 max buy in)

Posted 10 October 2011 - 09:02 AM

BG,Yes I am for banning all political donations and installing hard caps on advertisement spending. Let's see how candidates operate on a strict budget. Good practice.
"Give a little bit.....give a little bit of your chips to me...."

#26 vbnautilus

vbnautilus

    psychonaut

  • Members
  • 10,326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:venice beach, ca

Posted 10 October 2011 - 11:41 AM

View PostLongLiveYorke, on Sunday, October 9th, 2011, 5:33 PM, said:

I think the most powerful thing to come out of this movement is the "I am the 99%" slogan. I think this is the way for a politician to embrace this movement without risking being connected to hippies playing bongos:http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/
The thing is though, it's not true, is it? We are the 99 percent. We are getting kicked out of our homes. We are forced to choose between groceries and rent. We are denied quality medical care. We are suffering from environmental pollution. We are working long hours for little pay and no rights, if we're working at all. We are getting nothing while the other 1 percent is getting everything. We are the 99 percent. 99% of people are choosing between groceries and rent? I don't think so. Should be something like "We are the somewhere between 7 and 12 percent".

#27 LongLiveYorke

LongLiveYorke

    Ending the world one proton at a time

  • Members
  • 8,356 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manhattan
  • Interests:fizziks, teh maths, Raid-o-head, Rod Reynolds

Posted 10 October 2011 - 12:09 PM

View Postvbnautilus, on Monday, October 10th, 2011, 3:41 PM, said:

99% of people are choosing between groceries and rent? I don't think so. Should be something like "We are the somewhere between 7 and 12 percent".
Well, I don't think members of the Tea Party drink much tea either...In all seriousness, the idea isn't that all of the 99% share one common problem. The blog outlines the worries of those Americans who don't fall into the top 1%. Some are unemployed, some are in debt. But the many who do have jobs are also insecure about their savings, their healthcare, their retirement, their children's education, their future, etc. These are the concerns that the "We are the 99%" movement seeks to represent, it wants to give a voice to these people. And, while giving a voice to these problems seems like an obvious and trivial thing, it becomes necessary when the loudest voices come from the top.

#28 FCP Bob

FCP Bob

    Limit Holdem Dinosaur

  • Root Admin
  • 26,844 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scarberia

Posted 10 October 2011 - 12:47 PM

My first thought after watching this is that I want a Pony.A few real thoughts in the commercial but most have as much depth as the Right Wingers phrase that they want to take back their country.
Bob

info@fullcontactpoker.com

#29 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Deplorable Lives Matter

  • Members
  • 24,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 10 October 2011 - 03:23 PM

View PostCaneBrain, on Monday, October 10th, 2011, 10:02 AM, said:

BG,Yes I am for banning all political donations and installing hard caps on advertisement spending. Let's see how candidates operate on a strict budget. Good practice.
If we could make it a law that they could only spend $500 to run I would support it 100% just for the removal of those stupid commercials and mailers.But how do you pass a law that tells the average citizen you cannot spend your own money to rent a billboard that says X politician is a scum sucking dirt bag?Especially when it is probably true?Stop the money in one area, you just open the area in another.You will actually make large organizations like unions and the NRA ten times more powerful.
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

The government was set to protect man from criminals - and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government. - Ayn Rand

#30 AmScray

AmScray

    Honk

  • Members
  • 4,005 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Favorite Poker Game:wrhsf235yu

Posted 10 October 2011 - 04:29 PM

View PostBalloon guy, on Monday, October 10th, 2011, 3:23 PM, said:

Stop the money in one area, you just open the area in another.You will actually make large organizations like unions and the NRA ten times more powerful.
Not if you pass comprehensive laws.The Anti Influence and Corruption Act1) It shall be unlawful for any entity- corporate or individual- to donate more than $500 cash every 2 years to any federal politician, political campaign or entity associated with a politician or political campaign knowing it will be diverted thusly. Violation of this act constitutes the gravest possible breach of the public trust and shall be punishable by a term in prison of not less than 20 years, or 3 minutes in a chamber of starved piranhas. Problem Solved
Posted Image

#31 mrdannyg

mrdannyg

    Cheese Salesman

  • Members
  • 20,246 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 October 2011 - 04:56 PM

View PostAmScray, on Monday, October 10th, 2011, 9:29 PM, said:

Not if you pass comprehensive laws.The Anti Influence and Corruption Act1) It shall be unlawful for any entity- corporate or individual- to donate more than $500 cash every 2 years to any federal politician, political campaign or entity associated with a politician or political campaign knowing it will be diverted thusly. Violation of this act constitutes the gravest possible breach of the public trust and shall be punishable by a term in prison of not less than 20 years, or 3 minutes in a chamber of starved piranhas. Problem Solved
This doesn't address BG's problem at all. What's to stop a third party from running anti-candidate ads? The NRA would have a budget many times bigger than any candidate if we start limiting donations. No way you could put such a wide net around this type of ad under the type of writing you propose.
Long signatures are really annoying.

#32 hblask

hblask

    Perpetual slow learner

  • Members
  • 9,860 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota
  • Interests:Just deal the cards already

Posted 10 October 2011 - 05:31 PM

View PostCaneBrain, on Monday, October 10th, 2011, 8:23 AM, said:

that's fine but then don't complain about things like the auto bailout or Halliburton getting every no-bid contract in Iraq. If you make Presidents have to raise millions and millions of dollars to be competitive in elections, then they are going to have little choice but to reward their big donors when they can.
If our government wasn't trying to micromanage business and kept within their constitutional limits, there would be no pot of gold for these companies to bid over. Public funding doesn't solve that problem; it just entrenches incumbents even further and makes the cronyism worse.
"Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you?" -- J. Coulton


#33 hblask

hblask

    Perpetual slow learner

  • Members
  • 9,860 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota
  • Interests:Just deal the cards already

Posted 10 October 2011 - 05:32 PM

View PostFCP Bob, on Monday, October 10th, 2011, 8:56 AM, said:

How is this different than letting political donations be tax deductions ?
I don't think that is moral either, so you are asking the wrong person.
"Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you?" -- J. Coulton


#34 hblask

hblask

    Perpetual slow learner

  • Members
  • 9,860 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota
  • Interests:Just deal the cards already

Posted 10 October 2011 - 05:34 PM

View Postahosang, on Monday, October 10th, 2011, 9:51 AM, said:

I want to say that i don't necessarily agree, but there is a school of thought that :1) party outreach is a public good in a democratic society
So libertarians get as much as Dems and Repubs? What about socialists? What about fascists? What about the KKK party? Do they all get equal amounts? Or do the people in power decide whether the people out of power get to run a competitive campaign?
"Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you?" -- J. Coulton


#35 hblask

hblask

    Perpetual slow learner

  • Members
  • 9,860 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota
  • Interests:Just deal the cards already

Posted 10 October 2011 - 05:38 PM

View PostAmScray, on Monday, October 10th, 2011, 6:29 PM, said:

Not if you pass comprehensive laws.The Anti Influence and Corruption Act1) It shall be unlawful for any entity- corporate or individual- to donate more than $500 cash every 2 years to any federal politician, political campaign or entity associated with a politician or political campaign knowing it will be diverted thusly. Violation of this act constitutes the gravest possible breach of the public trust and shall be punishable by a term in prison of not less than 20 years, or 3 minutes in a chamber of starved piranhas. Problem Solved
Do "in-kind" donations count -- so contributing something other than cash is valued at market value? Because 30 seconds air time on a national network is worth millions in the final weeks of the campaign. Therefore, if in-kind donations are banned, no corporation can cover any candidates. If in-kind donations are not banned, the ban is full of more holes than my favorite undershorts.
"Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you?" -- J. Coulton


#36 El Guapo

El Guapo

    Like A Boss!

  • Members
  • 16,439 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Carmen's Flower

Posted 10 October 2011 - 06:04 PM

These Rhodes scholars walked right by me today chanting "Burn down Wall Street." The smell pituli was wafting in the air. Here are some pics of them I got:Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImageHere is one of their signs:Posted ImageHere are the cops staging for a possible riot:Posted ImagePosted ImageHere are a few of them "resting" while still arguing non sense in front of me:Posted ImagePosted Image

#37 AmScray

AmScray

    Honk

  • Members
  • 4,005 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Favorite Poker Game:wrhsf235yu

Posted 10 October 2011 - 11:33 PM

View Postmrdannyg, on Monday, October 10th, 2011, 5:56 PM, said:

This doesn't address BG's problem at all. What's to stop a third party from running anti-candidate ads? The NRA would have a budget many times bigger than any candidate if we start limiting donations. No way you could put such a wide net around this type of ad under the type of writing you propose.
Nothing. We'd have to accept that freedom of speech cannot be contained and that some people have more resources than others to get their message our further. The reason the National Rifle Association has so much money and influence is because they are an organization that represents the interests of old white men, who themselves have all the chips. It's not like the NRA is disproportionately sized, relative to the power and influence of their member base. White guys are control freaks who like what guns represent. Homosexuals, women, Jews, etc don't come from the same culture as old white men, so they tend to not like them. If the NRA (or trade unions, or gays, or whoever) wants to influence candidates with the threat of ideas, I'm totally cool with that. I'm OK with them saying "If you don't support us, we're running ads against you..." That politician then has to make an ideological decision, however, I'm sure he can find some gay SEO expert who's willing to donate his time and can achieve a similar reach for 1/1000th the cost. Maybe it's because I'm from Chicago where we have (bar none) the most rotten, openly corrupt political culture in the entire United States, but there's a big difference between trying to win influence in the pantheon of ideas versus buying influence with a manilla envelope full of cash. If a corporation or group entity wants to present their case for a candidate, then make a law that says any 30 second political ads paid for by a third party must contain a 5 second disclaimer (2.5 front, 2.5 back) that clearly outlined who paid for it.Make a law forbidding PACs and made-to-order political shell organizations from running political ads- entities that only exist to hide the identities of who's funding the ads... Anyone can run a political ad in this country, so long as they're an individual person or a credible entity that exists for purposes other than running political ads. Defining a credible group from a non-credible made to order PAC would be dead simple and revolve around tax returns. If we can define a bar as any establishment that derives (X%) of its income from the sale of alcohol, then we can define a PAC as any institution that spends (X%) of its donations on political activities, then ****ing ban them. Is it a can of worms? Yes. Nightmarishly complicated? Yes. Would it take some time to bulletproof? Yes. It's a rough issue, but its one we have to tackle. We're currently a Plutocracy, and it's killing our country.
Posted Image

#38 ahosang

ahosang

    Trolling FCP like everyone else...

  • Members
  • 1,282 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Under a bridge - ready to troll
  • Interests:Trolling
  • Favorite Poker Game:Trolling

Posted 11 October 2011 - 02:49 AM

View Posthblask, on Tuesday, October 11th, 2011, 2:34 AM, said:

So libertarians get as much as Dems and Repubs? What about socialists? What about fascists? What about the KKK party? Do they all get equal amounts? Or do the people in power decide whether the people out of power get to run a competitive campaign?
The bolded - essentially(although the committee will usually be described as non-partisan and will include some civil interest groups). Though in practice, it depends on a number of factors such as prior electoral success, as well as conforming to certain principles etc. Thresholds are the norm for starters, so like 5% of the previous vote etc, minimum number of women candidates, etc. I don't agree with public funding myself...
FCP is a trollfest. If ya can't beat 'em, join 'em!!!!

#39 Spademan

Spademan

    Poker Forum God

  • Members
  • 4,977 posts
  • Location:NC

Posted 11 October 2011 - 02:59 AM

Holy fucking Xenu*. This is the first post in the first forum, scrolling down from top, I'd respond to. I'll use this as my catch-all. This goes for this forum, the religion forum and off-topic. These are the only forums I've caught/kept up with in any way.Most of you are idiots. The level of argument is almost devoid of content, evidence, or reason. mk and FCP Bob are the only two who seem to absolutely care about epistemology. VB and LLY are clearly good at methodology (omg, they became scientists for a living... how shocking), and how good they are at testing and retesting and only accepting as a conclusion something that relates to observational reality is clear. But rhetorically... holy hell. So much faux "respect" given to nonsense, and more important so many opportunities to annihilate stupid argumetns passed. This is a matter of social weakness, and in no way disparaging of intellect. Maybe you're too busy to spend the three minutes necessary, an hour total a month for me, to parse and respond to ignorance in an effective way. This can be as simple as making meme out of a three-trick-pony style of a commenter. Yes, I said social weakness. Parse that rationally and deal with it. A special spot at the end here reserved for two posters:1. Scram. Fook, a brilliant and funny guy. In terms of raw intellect he is one of the top 3, including myself of course because I am nothing if not consistent in my estimation of of my greatness... holy shit Scram you go with fairly reasonable assumptions too often. I'm INTJ in terms of Jung and even I know better than to overstep the bounds of demonstrable reality.2. TB. Shining light of reason (and the resultant eloquence), self deprecation (which is a result of the former) and humor (which is a natural by-product of the former and the latter combined). Easy top three. But wtf are you talking about in the religion thread? Seriously, WAT? The absurd equivalence you made between religious faith and reason based argumentation is, seriously, stupid.*This is an effort to be informative without humor, cynicism or despair. All three probably still manifested themselves in some way.
'"Luck" is people taking the laws of probability personally; Luck is the excitement of bad math.'

#40 FCP Bob

FCP Bob

    Limit Holdem Dinosaur

  • Root Admin
  • 26,844 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scarberia

Posted 11 October 2011 - 03:52 AM

View PostSpademan, on Tuesday, October 11th, 2011, 6:59 AM, said:

mk and FCP Bob are the only two who seem to absolutely care about epistemology.
I had to look that up to make sure that what I care about is a good thing.
Bob

info@fullcontactpoker.com




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users